Article: How having a disability became cool — The Telegraph

Chandelier

Senior Member (Voting Rights)

Archived Link
3400-word article


How having a disability became cool​

Young women, nicknamed ‘sickfluencers’, are turning chronic illness into a lifestyle trend and entrenching a culture of economic inactivity
Poppy Coburn Associate Comment Editor​
Published 05 September 2026​

Perhaps you’ve seen it on a news segment on television about a transgender rights march, where every other attendee appears to be supported by a walking stick.​
Or perhaps you’ve heard about it in your family WhatsApp group, when your sister tells you about your seemingly healthy niece’s new condition.​
If you still haven’t noticed it, your daughter surely can’t have escaped the bravely smiling young women on Instagram, their profiles decked out in acronyms.​
POTS. ME. CF. ADHD. MDD. GAD. PMDD. EDS. FND.​
For a steadily growing group of British young women, these acronyms – and the conditions they represent – are fundamental to their lives.​
The country is sicker than it’s ever been before, and it’s not afraid of shouting about it. Disability is changing.​
To many, it is no longer an adversity to overcome, but a social identity akin to one’s sexuality, gender, or race; an immutable reality to be celebrated by the subject and accommodated by the rest of us.​
One in four British people is now disabled, according to the Department for Work and Pensions’ Family Resources Survey.​
To put this figure in context, this is a higher rate of disability than witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.​
The growth in those identifying as disabled does not reflect a sudden, shocking increase in the number of paraplegics. The twin driving factors are, instead: mental health disorders and chronic conditions.​
They can be hard to “prove” and harder to effectively treat, and are more likely to be experienced by young women.​
A cohort of young people – somewhat cruelly dubbed “sickfluencers” – want to tell you about their conditions and convince you they are real. Like the rest of my generation, they broadcast their struggles to an online community of like-minded individuals.​
But, were they not decked out in the accessories of their disease, it would be impossible to perceive the conditions they consider to be so central to their interaction with the world.​






This week, Dr Lesley Kavi, a former GP and chair of Pots UK, said that cases have significantly increased since the pandemic, but “half of patients are told that their symptoms are all in their head”.​
She added: “When they describe so many symptoms at one time, and the doctors don’t think to test for Pots, they assume the problem is psychological.”​
But, says O’Sullivan, there is no “demonstrable pathology or proof of a nervous system disorder.​
There is no pathology to prove a diagnosis”. It’s hardly surprising, then, that the rising number of women identifying as having Pots – with its relatable list of symptoms – is a prime example of what some doctors worry is an epidemic of overdiagnosis.​
Dr Katie Musgrave, a general practitioner, has seen this phenomenon first-hand.​
She describes a “hyper-awareness of physical symptoms like fatigue and a racing heart” from patients who visit her seeking an explanation for their pain, with an expectation that there will be a single, incontrovertible diagnosis.​
Often though, she says, it is more likely that factors such as “a lack of sleep and exercise and a poor diet” are causing the patient’s symptoms, and these can be resolved with minimal medical intervention.​
Some women, however, do not accept such a verdict. Invariably, these individuals have already decided they have a certain condition before they see a doctor, and if the GP refuses to validate their beliefs, they “seek out a private specialist and get a diagnosis of an unusual condition,” says Musgrave.​


 
Last edited:
Google Translate link.

Somehow reminds me of this article in the German newspaper taz (machine translation):



“The Problem Isn’t Us”​

Male-centered medicine nearly cost her her life, says Christina Pingel. Doctors told her she was hysterical and failed to detect a heart defect.
September 1, 2026​
taz: Ms. Pingel, to what extent did male-centered medicine nearly cost you your life?​
Christina Pingel: I had severe symptoms for ten years, and they gradually became worse. But numerous doctors told me that they were psychosomatic.​
taz: What kind of symptoms did you have?​
Pingel: I had cardiac arrhythmias that frightened me enormously and severely restricted my life. I had a feeling of pressure in my chest and difficulty breathing, especially when lying down. I felt dizzy all the time and could hardly sleep.​
taz: And you endured that for ten years?​
Pingel: It wasn't that bad all the time, but it kept getting worse. While my friends were out and about, I was increasingly staying at home. I was constantly exhausted. Eventually, I nearly fainted at the office. A cardiologist finally diagnosed me with severe mitral valve regurgitation, which was probably congenital.​
taz: What exactly is that?​
Pingel: The valve between the left atrium and the left ventricle does not close properly. As a result, some of the blood flows back into the atrium with every heartbeat. The heart has to work harder to supply the body with enough blood and oxygen.​
taz: Did your mother have the same condition?​
Pingel: Probably not exactly the same one, but she also had a heart defect. In 1995, my mother was found clinically dead in her office. After several attempts, she was resuscitated. But she suffered severe brain damage and was left with profound disabilities.​
taz: Did she live in a care home?​
Pingel: Yes, she lived in a care home for another 25 years, but she no longer recognized me. I was nine years old at the time. That's difficult for a child that age to understand. At some point, I could no longer visit her because it was too distressing for me.​







taz: Let’s go back to your story. If a mother nearly dies from a heart defect and her daughter later goes to the doctor with chest pressure and shortness of breath, shouldn’t that set off all the alarm bells?​
Pingel: Unfortunately, it didn’t. Doctors would often say to me: “Of course, what happened with your mother was very distressing. But you’re a young woman — you’ll be fine. You’re being a little hysterical.” This is known as medical gaslighting.​
taz: What does that mean?​
Pingel: Medical gaslighting means that patients are not taken seriously or that their perception of their own condition is called into question. When I was 26, my symptoms began occurring more and more frequently. I saw numerous doctors and went to the emergency department several times. I was often laughed at, doctors would interrupt me, and they would condescendingly tell me that I was imagining everything. Again and again, they made me feel that my perception was wrong and that I didn’t understand my own body. I say “doctors,” but 95 percent of them were men.​
taz: How do you explain the fact that they didn’t take your symptoms seriously?​
Pingel: Our medical system, like all other areas of society, is organized along patriarchal lines. For centuries, the white male body was regarded as the medical norm. People who do not conform to that norm are not adequately represented in research, diagnosis, or treatment. This includes women, trans people, intersex people, and marginalized groups, among others. Yet the effects of medications, the symptoms of diseases, and the course of illnesses can differ significantly between people.​
taz: What, specifically, is different?​
Pingel: Bodies differ much more fundamentally than medicine assumed for centuries. For example, many medications take longer to be absorbed by women’s bodies. The body also often takes longer to break down medications, due to the way the liver functions and differences in body-fat and body-water composition. Hormonal fluctuations caused by the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, or menopause also have an effect. But there is very little research on this.​


 
Last edited:
Dr Katie Musgrave, a general practitioner, has seen this phenomenon first-hand.She describes a “hyper-awareness of physical symptoms like fatigue and a racing heart” from patients who visit her seeking an explanation for their pain, with an expectation that there will be a single, incontrovertible diagnosis.Often though, she says, it is more likely that factors such as “a lack of sleep and exercise and a poor diet” are causing the patient’s symptoms, and these can be resolved with minimal medical intervention.

A previous missive from Katie Musgrave in this members-only post.
 
This line of attack is disgustingly transparent and everyone involved in writing and contributing to this ableist, misogynist article should hang their heads in shame.

This is the same stuff as Wessely, the same as Freud, the same as William James dismissing his sister Alices health issues, going back into time immemorial. Just picking on sick people, especially sick women, and telling them it's fashionable and they're lazy etc etc.

We just had a devastating pandemic and the fact that loads more people are disabled now shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
 
The Telegraph article ('How disability became cool') states:
'One in four British people is now disabled, according to the Department for Work and Pensions’ Family Resources Survey.'

This 'one in four is now disabled' figure is frequently repeated in UK media articles calling for 'a crackdown' on disability benefits. BUT the one in four figure is NOT the number of people in the UK in receipt of sickness/disability benefits, and also includes the elderly population.

The UK general public have taken the One in Four figure as 'evidence' that 'UK benefit claims are spiraling'. They are not 'spiraling'. I have given references that challenge the 'spiraling' myth in previous posts, which include the Financial Times, and the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) report on:
'The rise in incapacity benefits after 2013-14 coincided with a rise in the state pension age.').

The UK government's drive to reduce and deny sickness/disability benefits appears to position the UK as uniquely having a 'spiraling' disability benefits budget when compared with other countries. Though as a percentage of GDP the entire UK benefits bill has remained stable for 40 years, and is currently a lower percentage of UK GDP than when Cameron was PM (2010 - 2016).


OECD Publications, Health At A Glance: Europe 2024,
'State of Health in the EU Cycle' :

'More than one‑third of adults in the EU (35%) reported living with a longstanding illness or health problem in 2023'

'60% of people aged over 65 in the EU reported that they had at least one chronic condition in 2023'


The OECD is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, members are 38 high income, developed countries.


Edit Add:
The One in Four disability figure is the same across the EU:

'In 2024, 24% of the EU population over the age of 16 had some form of disability.

According to Eurostat estimates, that equals to 90 million people or one in four adults in the EU.'
The European Council.
'Disability in the EU: facts and figures'

 
Last edited:
This 'one in four is now disabled' figure is frequently repeated in UK media articles calling for 'a crackdown' on disability benefits.
I found this post of yours also very interesting:
 
I found this post of yours also very interesting:
Yes that stat needs to get the same level of media exposure as articles about “PIP sticks” and “sickfluencers”.
 
I found this post of yours also very interesting:

Chris Giles, the Financial Times economic commentator, October 2025:

'Costs are not spiralling. Projected total welfare payments, at around 11 per cent of national income a year, are lower than when David Cameron was prime minister even though there are more pensioners.
Total working-age benefits within the government’s welfare cap — including all out-of-work and health-related benefits — will be well below 2010s levels even after Labour’s U-turn on cuts to disability benefits.
Going back further, total non-pensioner benefits have hovered between 4 and 5 per cent of GDP for over 40 years.'

'Non-pensioner benefits have been stable over many decades'


Chris Giles does state that:
'the cost of health and disability support has risen much faster than expected (and is projected to go on doing so). Part of this results from the rise in mental ill-health and part from a long whack-a-mole experience — if payments in one bit of the system are squeezed'
- including the issue of raising the state pension age.
 
Does that one in four being disabled include all the doddery 80 to 100+ year olds? Does it include people with conditions such as dyslexia and colourblindness and a missing part of a limb who are mostly able to do full time jobs?
 
The Telegraph article mirrors previous articles from 2022 and 2026:

Suzy Weiss in The Free Press - 'Hurts So Good' 9/6/2022

'Why are so many young women suffering from invisible illnesses? Meet the girls in a world of pain.'


And Kathleen Stock in the Times 5/8/2026:
'Why are young women using walking sticks'
'A disproportionate number of Gen Z females are affected by vague syndromes and may be victims of social contagion'


Edit Add: .... Kathleen Stock uses quotes which repeat the historic unsubstantiated 'overanalysing normal experiences', 'secondary gains' and 'deconditioning' ideology -
'These feelings may be frightening; but they also make you different, special, excused from the pressures of life, pleasingly fussed over by strangers. And if a person then spends a lot of time sitting or lying down, she will naturally become unfit, so that the next time she stands up or walks any distance she will feel even worse; and the cycle of confused self-interpretation will continue.'

NB the link in the quote above (in blue) links to a nasty misinformation rage-bait Times article entitled 'Teenagers on PIP paid £100 a week more than those working full time'.
This article repeats the false claim that people get high rate PIP for mild anxiety or ADHD alone.


Archive copy of the Times article:


The 2022 Suzy Weiss article was repeated (syndicated?) in the Daily Mail.


When the Mail article was published, one of the women interviewed by Suzy Weiss went public stating that she did not make the statements (quotes) attributed to her. The Weiss article (then the Mail) claimed Marybeth Marshal, 27, stated:

“There’s some people who deep inside don’t want to get better.” Marshal knows the spoonie world well. She dropped out of Boston College in 2016 to focus full-time on healing from fibromyalgia"
And
" “You can get addicted to being sad, and sick, and the attention you receive,” Marshal told me. “The ‘misery loves company’ thing makes you sicker.”

But Marybeth insisted on her Instagram that she simply did not make those statements, and that she did not drop out of Boston College and is on the Deans list.
The Daily Mail appear to have removed the supposed quotes from Marybeth from it's article, but the Weiss Free Press article did not.


Both articles are free with references to female hysteria, and Suzanne O'Sullivan.
 
Last edited:
Does that one in four being disabled include all the doddery 80 to 100+ year olds? Does it include people with conditions such as dyslexia and colourblindness and a missing part of a limb who are mostly able to do full time jobs?

Yes. The One in Four figure is from the
'Family Resources Survey (FRS) for the financial year 2022 to 2023, providing information on income and circumstances of UK households.'

 
Last edited:
To many, it is no longer an adversity to overcome, but a social identity akin to one’s sexuality, gender, or race; an immutable reality to be celebrated by the subject and accommodated by the rest of us.
This is complete trash. Imagine being gullible enough to believe this. There is a lot of academic literature on this, and it shows exactly the opposite. And all it takes is a few minutes of browsing to make it clear how this is a completely miserable existence.

What a weird idea to tie this in to trans issues in the first sentence, a deliberate choice that this is a call for a minute of hate against not one, but two groups of marginalized people. And the premise of the article is even dumber. There is nothing cool about this, it's literally sick people trying to improve their own future from a state of total negligence and intentional immiseration. Everything we do angers some people. US simply existing angers a lot of people, and every one of medicine's institutions loves to shit on us.

What's even more insulting is how many people said that Long Covid was changing how medicine deals with this. It was always a lie. They refuse to change, and there is no oversight or leadership to force them away from doing harm, and all the corrective mechanisms have been disabled on purpose to allow this to perpetuate, to make some people feel superior and snarky about the suffering of millions.
 
There have been some interesting changes in statistics and patterns of how people claim. None of which these stories ever cover of course. There are various outlets that deliberately misrepresent even after being told by experts what’s really going on and why

Away from the ragebait and prejudice if people are interested in reading on the topic one of the best academics and writers on policy out there is Ben Baumberg Geiger

He’s also got a substack

And has done work with the Resolution Foundation and others on policy. He’s currently advising the Timms review and has advised the DWP before. But one person cannot change these things alone
 
Does that one in four being disabled include all the doddery 80 to 100+ year olds? Does it include people with conditions such as dyslexia and colourblindness and a missing part of a limb who are mostly able to do full time jobs?
From Households below average income series: quality and methodology information report FYE 2024

Disability definition​

The means of identifying people with a disability has changed over time. Data are not available for FYE 1995. Up until FYE2002 all those who reported having a long-standing limiting illness were identified as having a disability. From FYE 2003, statistics are based on responses to questions about difficulties across several areas of life. Figures for FYE 2003 and FYE2004 are based on those reporting substantial difficulties across eight areas of life and figures from FYE 2005 to FYE 2012 are based on those reporting substantial difficulties across nine areas of life. From FYE 2013 the FRS disability questions were revised to reflect new harmonised standards. Disabled people are identified as those who report any physical or mental health condition(s) or illness(es) that last or are expected to last 12 months or more, and which limit their ability to carry out day-to-day activities a little, or a lot.

FRS questions FYE 2005 to FYE 2012​

The FRS/HBAI definition for an adult with a disability is if they answered yes to the ‘Health’ question and yes to any of the difficulties listed in ‘DisDif’.

Health​

Do you have any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity? By ‘long-standing’ I mean anything that has troubled you over a period of at least 12 months or that is likely to affect you over a period of at least 12 months.

If ‘yes’ to Health.

Health Problem Limit Activities (HProb)​

Does this physical or mental illness or disability (Do any of these physical or mental illnesses or disabilities) limit your activities in any way?

If ‘yes’ to Health.

Health Problems cause Difficulties (DisDif)​

SHOW CARD E1

Does this/Do these health problem(s) or disability(ies) mean that you have substantial difficulties with any of these areas of your life? Please read out the numbers from the card next to the ones which apply to you.

PROBE: Which others?

  1. Mobility (moving about)
  2. Lifting, carrying or moving objects
  3. Manual dexterity (using your hands to carry out everyday tasks)
  4. Continence (bladder and bowel control)
  5. Communication (speech, hearing or eyesight)
  6. Memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand
  7. Recognising when you are in physical danger
  8. Your physical co-ordination (e.g.: balance)
  9. Other health problem or disability
  10. None of these

FRS questions FYE 2013 onwards​

The FRS/HBAI definition for an adult with a disability is if they answered yes to the ‘Health1’ and yes, a lot or yes, a little to the ‘Condition’ question.

If ‘yes’ to Health1.

Health Problems cause Difficulties (Dis1)​

SHOW CARD E1

Do any of these conditions or illnesses affect you in any of the following areas?

  1. Vision (for example blindness or partial sight)
  2. Hearing (for example deafness or partial hearing)
  3. Mobility (for example walking short distances or climbing stairs)
  4. Dexterity (for example lifting and carrying objects, using a keyboard)
  5. Learning or understanding or concentrating
  6. Memory
  7. Mental Health
  8. Stamina or breathing or fatigue
  9. Socially or behaviourally (for example associated with autism, attention deficit disorder or Asperger’s syndrome)
  10. Other
  11. Refusal (spontaneous)
Ask if Health1=Yes

Limiting longstanding illness (Condition)​

Does your condition or illness/do any of your conditions or illnesses reduce your ability to carry-out day-to-day activities?

  1. Yes, a lot
  2. Yes, a little
  3. Not at all
INTERVIEWER: Day to day activities include washing and dressing, household cleaning, cooking, shopping for essentials, using public or private transport, remembering to pay bills, lifting objects from the ground or lifting objects from a work surface in the kitchen.

Comparisons over time​

Compared to FYE 2012 the number of individuals in disabled families went up by 0.2m in FYE 2013 (similar to those in non-disabled families).

However, while the number of pensioners in non-disabled families increased by 0.4m, the number in disabled families decreased by 0.3m.

The reverse was true for the number of children in disabled families, which increased by 0.3m, while those in non-disabled families fell by 0.2m.

These figures could be affected by the change in the disability questions. Individuals might have different interpretations of particular health conditions or question wording meaning that changes to the disability question may have had a different effect on certain groups. Therefore, comparisons over time should be made with caution, as they may be affected by the change in the definition of disability.
From Family Resources Survey: background information and methodology Published 26 March 2026 — 9. Coherence and comparability —> 9.4 Disability:

9.4 Disability​

The FRS does not record information on individuals in nursing or retirement homes, since it only surveys private households. This means that figures relating to people in older age groups may not be representative of the UK population, as some older people may have moved into homes where they can receive more frequent help. Therefore, it is likely that disability figures and impairments among all older people are higher than estimated from the FRS.

The way in which disabled people have been identified in the FRS has changed over time. From 2002 to 2003 statistics were based on responses to questions about barriers across several areas of life; thereafter until survey year 2011 to 2012 they were based on those reporting barriers across nine areas of life.

From the 2012 to 2013 survey year, a person is considered to have a disability if they regard themselves as having a long-standing illness, disability or impairment which causes substantial difficulty with day-to-day activities. This updated definition is consistent with the core definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010, and complies with harmonised standards for social surveys published in August 2011

An impairment is different to a medical condition. It looks at the functions that a person either cannot perform or has difficulty performing because of their health condition. For example, glaucoma is a medical condition but being unable to see or being partially sighted is an impairment.

Impairment harmonised standard – Government Analysis Function

Some people classified as disabled and having rights under the Equality Act 2010 are not captured by this definition, such as people with a long-standing illness or disability which is not currently affecting their day-to-day activities.

Long lasting health conditions and illness harmonised standard – Government Analysis Function

Figures in tables 4.1 to 4.6 are consistent with the Employment of Disabled People 2024 publication. Employment figures in table 4.7 are close to the Labour Force Survey, but the Labour Force Survey remains the preferred source of data on economic inactivity by reason.

Alternative data sources​

Outcomes for disabled people in the UK 2021

The employment of disabled people 2025

Labour market data for protected groups in Wales and the UK, April 2004 to March 2021

Labour market statistics (Annual Population Survey): 2024

Labour Market Statistics for Scotland by Disability: January to December 2022

Disability Employment Gap in Northern Ireland 2020

Disability within the Northern Ireland Labour Market

Revisions to medical condition ICD high level grouping codes for ESA and IB/SDA

Economic inactivity

Labour market status of disabled people
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom